Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

hypnosec writes "Microsoft's Flight Simulator series, which was in dormant state until now, will see a re-launch this spring and that too for free. The name of this series will be simply Flight, and players will have free access to the digital sky with this simulator. In other words, it will be available as a free download; however, the user would need to buy additional content to enhance their experience. The content that can be purchased includes aircraft as well as new environments. Microsoft states that the most amazing part of this game is the user can experience some real life locations like Big Island of Hawaii along with 'region-specific weather patterns, foliage, terrain and landmarks.'" [Video demo here.] I'd like to know where the ESRB finds "crude humor" or "mild violence" in there.

And I have to say I'm really impressed with the game. The free model seems great too, especially considering that there has always been a huge market place towards Flight Simulator aircrafts, scenery etc. Maybe they will work out some deals with third party developers too. But as I'm under NDA I wont say too much, but you can sign up for beta here [microsoft.com]. I suggest you do!

I doubt my house would even show up on the ground texture, but that'd be fun, too.

I never played the last version of Flight Sim, but it seems to me that for at least a handful of cities, they used satellite (or maybe just aerial) photos of the cities for ground texture, so if your city happens to be one of those, then yes, your house would be visible.

Of course, photorealistic cities are probably among the items you would have to purchase for the new Flight.

This game would be great as an MMO, where you could fly with others. I wonder if a "serious" MMO, where you're actually logging hours would do well. How would kids messing with people actually using it as a simulator work? Play servers and serious servers, where you'll be booted if you mess around?

Should be fairly easy. The only way to really troll anyone is to cause air-to-air collisions or maybe crash into parked planes. Plain old crashes don't hurt anyone else, so they should be able to do that as much as they want. So all you need to do is log collisions and then have a ruleset that you can make a determination of who was at fault and then "suspend" their Virtual pilot's license for increasing amounts of time if they are at fault. That or you simply make air-to-air collisions impossible with

Amazingly enough, people already do this, albeit not with Microsoft Flight Simulator. X-Plane pilots join up with virtual air traffic controllers to efficiently run the airspace in their virtual world. X-Plane is a pretty hardcore package though that appeals to a different set of people than Microsoft Flight Simulator.

FSX has plug-ins for VATSIM and IVAO, just like X-Plane. Furthermore, FSX and X-Plane pilots can see and interact with each other via the virtual environment, so it could be considered platform independent. Runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux, so it's *that* platform independent, too.

This is quite common; I have been doing it for many years on VATSIM (ATC Simulator) and flying with a virtual airline (DCA). It is a lot of fun if you are really into simulation (not games). For radio comms, Teamspeak is one of the popular voice systems. Realtime weather is also available once you log into the VATSIM servers. You do have to know your stuff, but the VATSIM folks are really pretty helpful and don't mind if you keep your plane parked for a few hours and just listen to the chatter to get an

Check out VATSIM [vatsim.net] sometime. It's already an "MMO" of virtual pilots flying together, along with virtual Air Traffic Controllers. VATSIM takes it seriously, too, trying to be as professional as can be (pilots and ATC).

What about if you stopped following my posts and actually contributed to the discussion like I do? I have no idea why someone would upmod your off-topic post and down-mod my on-topic opinion, but oh well.

No... that was a contribution. It was on topic and relevent, contained information someone interested in this flight simulator might find interesting (a link to the beta signup) and an opinion about the quality of the game. The only problem you have with this post is that it is positive toward a company you don't like.

You are the one getting argumentative, you are the one derailing the conversation, you are the one who is adding exactly 0 value to this discussion, and your stance boils down to an ad hominem attack. You look absolutely petty. So even if this person is being paid to say what he's saying, what you're doing is much much worse.

Except you don't contribute. You shill. Then when you are found out, you create a new account and return to shill.

How is it a shill when it's a post with a link to a game that's discussed in TFS?

Maybe if the story was "The Death of Flight Simulators" and the frist post was "Oh, hay, no it isn't dead, check out this link", but I think your shill detection sensors are dialed in a little too sensitive.

I personally stopped playing flight sims in the early 90s and just seemed to forget they exist at all. I might actually try it out if it's free and the paid bonuses aren't obnoxiously staring me in the face every 2 minutes l

Why is that the worst part of it? I'd say a fanatical zealotry and an unwillingness to engage dissenting opinion is much worse. At least the shills provide rational, well thought out aruments and rebuttals.

Actually MS has always had some of the best flight sims out there. I've been a fan of MS flight sims since the days when Combat Flight Simulator and the MSN Gaming Zone reigned supreme. The bad thing is my current computer just can't handle flight since X was released.

NO they haven't. They've had some of the best looking visuals but their simulation part has always been - wanting. X-Plane has historically been the opposite. Meaning, X-Plane has historically lacked in visuals but offered superb simulation. Since X-Plane 9, it has generally met or beat MS in both visuals and simulation. About the only thing MS' offering beat X-Plane at has been some advanced avionics, such as Garmin 430 and 530, so on and so on.

The flight models in X-Plane have been better due to Laminar Research's approach; MSFS has traditionally used look-up tables for aircraft modelling, whereas X-Plane uses finite element analysis [wikipedia.org]. Even with FEA, though, Garbage In Garbage Out applies.

Furthermore, XP is packaged with a variety of tools to create and manage aircraft models. Blender and GIMP can be used to enhance their visual modelling. There's a "free as in beer" world editor [x-plane.com]. Put it all together and the FS community can put together content for X-Plane.

There's a lot of controversy being generated over at the AVSIM forums [avsim.net] right now, due to rumors stating that there will limited opportunity for third parties to create (and distribute, free or otherwise) content for MS Flight. It's my belief that community support is what makes a flight simulator really shine. If MS has killed or maimed that community support for Flight, I'm not sure it'll go anywhere.

The moderation system is only meant to rate POSTS directly, not users. Even if he IS a shill, his first post is useful and relevant to this thread and your replies are annoying. Let the Karma system do its job and stop spamming up the place.

There is a general guideline to not to respond to AC trolls but I believe that I have to defend what in my opinion is the spirit of Slashdot. So what if he likes a product published by Microsoft? 1. It is his opinion. 2. There are also good products published by Microsoft. Their work is often quite impressive - Look at white papers coming out from Microsoft Research.3. Even if he worked for Microsoft, then maybe he could sometimes afford to little bit promote the products associated with him. People workin

I've been somewhat passively following this ordeal for about a month (maybe longer) now. Personally, I think if someone is constantly changing account names and trying to game the system, it's a clear violation of the "spirit of Slashdot" to begin with... so you are arguing with an AC who pointed this out. (Articulate are not.)

Main Points:First post is well known to be the premium spot. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they get the most views.He/they regularly changes accounts because they want to keep good karma so people read the posts. (I can't seem to find the post where they stated it, mainly because I don't remember which account it was posted under and I didn't keep the link. [didn't find it that important until now...])They get first post on Google/Android stories and Microsoft stories. Always with the same bias. (Usually "selling" something great about Microsoft either way...)

Side Points:There are companies called "Reputation management" companies that specifically try to game online systems to try to steer opinion.Slashdot's Karma system is not flawless and can be exploited (Hell, everyone knows about sock puppets.)I personally don't like to be played.I can't help but watch this train wreck.

Hopefully they'll do both. The other big flight sim program, X-Plane [x-plane.com], has both community created free addons and commercial addons at additional cost from third parties. There's a big community [x-plane.org] around that and it adds a lot to the program. As people might expect, the stuff you pay for is usually better quality, althrough there is some really great free stuff out there.

It'd be nice if Microsoft encourages others to make content and provides tools to help with that. But I'm not sure that's part of their bu

I wouldn't mind so much for something like this. There are only a few simulated aircraft I'd like to fly, so if I could get those for cheap then I say no problem - I'll pay the few $$$. Better to let it be focused on the stuff that I actually want to do rather than pay a huge lump sum to get a bunch of stuff I have no interest in.

Basically, the main plane I want is the Piper J3 Cub. Older stuff like a the Taylorcrafts, Luscombes, Aeronca Champ, etc, would all be nice too. Basically the stuff I'd actually want to fly in real life (which I currently can't - I have my PP-ASEL but can't get my medical renewed due to some issues - simulation is a good substitute).

Mild Violence: It's possible to die. But if anything, you'll see the plane break apart, or the windshield crack.

Is this game going to be MMO? Otherwise it's hard to envision the pay-for-content-as-you-go model working out. It kind of made sense to have to pay for big fat scenery packs, but who wants to get nickel-and-dimed piecemeal? On the other hand, they'll probably sell bundles anyway. If the news here is that they're doing away with physical media (well, besides that ms flightsim is coming back in some

Microsoft states that the most amazing part of this game is the user can experience some real life locations like Big Island of Hawaii along with 'region-specific weather patterns, foliage, terrain and landmarks.'

The only games I play are on XBox360. I might be interested in that game/simulation. If I needed to buy some fancy control devices, so be it. But having my nice big TV and all it would make the flight simulation pretty nice. And doing the the Live networking would be kinda fun too where you could join groups of flyers and such... interacting with them and all.

Not long ago, I saw my brother doing the flight sim thing on his PC. It was impressive enough, but not impressive enough for me to want to buy and set up a Windows PC... game system? Okay. But my stuff is Linux. I'm comfortable there... got some Apple stuff collecting dust but otherwise all Linux. A free game isn't enough to pull me back to Windows at home.

The only games I play are on XBox360. I might be interested in that game/simulation. If I needed to buy some fancy control devices, so be it. But having my nice big TV and all it would make the flight simulation pretty nice. And doing the the Live networking would be kinda fun too where you could join groups of flyers and such... interacting with them and all.

Not long ago, I saw my brother doing the flight sim thing on his PC. It was impressive enough, but not impressive enough for me to want to buy and set up a Windows PC... game system? Okay. But my stuff is Linux. I'm comfortable there... got some Apple stuff collecting dust but otherwise all Linux. A free game isn't enough to pull me back to Windows at home.

It is a flight simulator. Doesn't exactly match up with the gameplay demographic of consoles, though it does sound like there will be some arcadey options. Oh, and there is the fact that high-quality simulators are often CPU-bound, so they would have to make serious compromises to make it playable on a console. Not that this has stopped any other game companies from designing down to that level, and it is too early to really have an idea of how advanced the simulator element is, but that could be a real problem.

Personally I like the idea of a flight sim, but so far the ones I've tried have all been pretty boring. While one can theoretically use them for actual flight training (if you get the extra-special dongle that doesn't do anything but cost you an enormous amount), to me the fun part is doing stupid shit that would get you killed in real life. PC sims like Flight Gear and X-Plane do a decent enough job of simulating routine flight dynamics, but as soon as you start doing anything remotely stupid (or fun) they just fall apart. And they don't even have the decency to show pieces of your plane flying apart when you hit things:( I'll probably give MS Flight a try, since it is free, but I'll likely stick with Il-2 for my flight sim cravings; the flight model might not have quite the same fidelity, but it rewards stupidity with bits and pieces flying off - and then there's the fact that you can blow shit up when you're tired of just flying.

Is the MS Flight Sim series really so multi-monitor-optimized that playing them on a single screen would be so horrible? Really curious here, because I only have one monitor hooked up to my desktop right now (been using laptops exclusively for a few months, and those only have one monitor port) - although I do have like 5 CRTs in the closet. Where are those DVI=>VGA adapters I used to have?

Sounds like they are taking a page right out of Zynga's playbook. Offer a game for free, get a user addicted, and then convince that user to spend money on "improve their game experience." I know a few people that have spent quite a bit of money on farmville, mafia wars, etc. with in-app purchases. Way more than anyone would spend to download a full version of a game.

I'd rather pay up front for something and have a complete product (or at least, know how much of that product I'm getting). I'm real aversive to Zynga's model, because there is no way, up front, to know how much you are going to spend to get a good experience playing the game. You just have to keep buying more and more credits as time goes on.

There are pros and cons to both approaches. With the in-game purchase it's easy to lose track of how much you've spent, but it's equally easy to spend full price on a game and find out it's not worth the cost, and then you're out all of the money at once instead of paying out a little at a time while you're still getting enjoyment from the experience.

It doesn't compare to FlightGear. FG is built with a focus on simulating the physics of flight.. It's seen some really nice improvements in the eye candy department as of late as well.

Plus, with FlightGear, it's free, as in freedom, and as in beer, as in "here's the source code and all the artwork!"..

There isn't a market place to buy new locations because the ENTIRE PLANET is available for free in FG. Not to mention hundreds of planes, from gliders to cargo/passenger jets, WWI bi-planes to WWII fighters and bombers, to F-15's, etc.

Local weather phenomenon, real-time real-world weather conditions from live METAR data on the internet, multiplayer support allowing you to fly with people all over the world, all free.

All for free... Any other flightsim is pretty much DOA as far as I'm concerned.

When Flightgear 2.0.0 was released, it was released with a new system that more-slickly rendered runway lights -- it used a so-called "point sprite approach." However, Flightgear's implementation of point sprites did not accommodate ATI's non-standard spec, so airports were 100%-dark for all those using ATI hardware. Who is at fault -- whether the Flightgear developers or ATI -- doesn't really matter to me. Why? It's fairly rare for other software vendors to ignore a quirk in a very popular piece of hardwar

I could point the finger to crappy ATI support, or I could just pay $30 for a copy of FSX that will run just fine. One alternative would be to learn to program and contribute to FlightGear, but my hobby is flight simulation -- it's more effective for me to just pay the $30.

Someone asked what the difference between flightgear and MSFS is -- I'm providing my perspective that MSFS is a far-ahead of flightgear.

Who plays these? I can understand aviation buffs and maybe even people that are pursuing a license but I have never understood it aside from that. I've played all manner of them since the old days of CGA monitors and while the graphics have gotten better it still is like mediocre masturbation at best. Taking off and landing are fun but the 1:1 realtime flight in between is kinda silly to me.

You're flying in the wrong places then. I have a copy of X on a laptop that I drag out for friends who are visiting (I live in Alaska) and I show them some of the routes we might be flying over. It's fun to get people airsick before they set foot on the plane...

I hope that like with the MSFS series before it [having legit 2002, 2004 disks, and having torrented 95 for the hell of it] that even though THIS will be DLC driven that users can still do their own addons [scenery, airports, models, AI, etc] - and that there will be backwards compatability for aircraft models.

...when I can look out the cessna's window and see my actual house when I fly over my block.

Seriously, for all it's technical accuracy, the scenery in MSFS is kind of dull and unrealistic. Sure I can fly around somewhat a somewhat real looking NYC (home) but 9 miles to the west, and my town looks like flat grassland. It gets old fast.

I want to take off from Princeton Airport, head southwest and see Princeton. And then New Brunswick and Cranberry. Not random dirty green flatland.

So yeah, I'll pay for another version of flight sim when (if ever) it will look something like really flying over the landscape. Houses, fields, etc.

This being said, I never appreciated FSX as much as since I got my PPL license. Sure I can't see my house, but I can actually practice and prepare VFR navigations using the default scenery since the stuff that really matters to the real pilots are is there. I also bought X-Plane to compare and it failed completely: it looks prettier but I almost got lost before leaving the CTR. So I can tell you, from a pilot's point of view, FSX really feels like flying over the landscape since I can use my low-altitude ma

If you really like flight sims, X-plane is the way to go. They have lots of free 3rd party content. If cheap is what you like, FlightGear is the way to go - open source with tons of add-ons, downloadable scenerey, but the graphics are not as pretty. Both have a linux (and mac?) version of course.

I could crash my plane horrifically into the Sears Tower using MS Flight Simulator 1.0 for Macintosh. My little turbo-prop airplane started out at Meigs Field. Mayor Daley was correct to close that airport, he just did it ham-handedly. Will Microsoft's downloadable content prevent wannabe terrorists from crashing planes into buildings? What if, as in my case, you just suck as a pilot? I never did learn how to land that thing reliably.

I've often wondered though. . . yeah, you can make money that way, but for every person who spends hundreds or thousands of dollars on DLC, I bet you have hundreds or thousands of players who never buy anything?

Well, anyhow, however it works out, there's enough successful free-to-play games out their raking in the dough that I guess it does work out in the company's favor in the end.

I've often wondered though. . . yeah, you can make money that way, but for every person who spends hundreds or thousands of dollars on DLC, I bet you have hundreds or thousands of players who never buy anything?

That kind of logic is what's causing problems for the movie and music industries. It doesn't matter how many people are not paying for your product, it matters how many people are. Your job, as a capitalist business, is to maximise the product of the number of people who are paying by the amount that they are paying. The movie industry has spent a huge amount on marketing campaigns to try to get people to stop pirating their products, forgetting that their goal should have been to make people start paying for them.

Next up, movie add-ons! You get a copy of the script for free. $5 gets you a copy showing the characters against a greenscreen with no CGI. Another $10 will add in backgrounds. $10 each for household items, guns, explosions and nudity.

They'd never do that - people would too easily realise how empty most movies are without the eye candy of the explosions. Worst case scenario, people might actually start demanding well written stories that aren't full of holes.

They'd never do that - people would too easily realise how empty most movies are without the eye candy of the explosions. Worst case scenario, people might actually start demanding well written stories that aren't full of holes.

No, but they do do the reverse.

You buy the DVD, you get the movie.

Alternatively, you buy the "Directors Cut", you pay $3 more and get it with a couple of extra scenes which were left on the cutting room floor for a good reason and a director's commentary (which it turns out is fantastically boring and you can't bear to watch more than 5 minutes of).

You could buy the "Special Edition" a couple of years later for $8 more. You get the Directors Cut version but the box is in a tin and includes a poster. The tin doesn't quite fit your bookcase and makes it look all untidy next to all the normal DVD cases; the poster you never take out and indeed you're surprised when a friend who's a real movie buff shows you it - you didn't even notice it in the tin.

If you're patient and want something special, you buy the "10th Anniversary Special Edition" ten years after release for $10 more, you get the Directors' Cut, a "Making Of" documentary (where they cobbled together some footage from the original green-screen shots; occasionally these are interesting but as often as not you find the guys who make the movies are excellent behind the camera but terrible in front of it) and version with a different ending. Why was the ending different? Turned out that the original idea that looked great on paper really didn't work when it was filmed and edited, so they had to write another ending. You watch the original ending once, then never again.

What you're saying is true. . . so long as you can actually make a profit. If you spend a million dollars developing a new free to play game, plus a bunch of premium content, and then only sell $200k of the premium product, you have a problem.

I suppose that has probably happened to at least a few of the free-to-play games through the years. . . you just usually don't hear much about the failures. But, in any case, it's likely that the customers wouldn't have payed to play those games in the first place, so

I've often wondered though. . . yeah, you can make money that way, but for every person who spends hundreds or thousands of dollars on DLC, I bet you have hundreds or thousands of players who never buy anything?

They don't exactly give away Railworks, either. It does sometimes get discounted in Steam sales, and if you bought the original, then you got free upgrades to 2 and 3. You do actually have to buy the base game at some point, though.

I suspect this is a special case, driven by the... erm... particular nature of the enthusiast community in question.

More than anything else, it reminds me of the Idolm@ster games (huge in Japan, unreleased in the West), where the home console versions not only require the purchas

actually, if you just watch the video it's light on details. I read elsewhere that it will be configurable to be as complicated or as easy as you want. If you want the full realism sim, do it, if you want basically an arcade game, you can do that too. It is also not limited to those 3 inputs. Full support remains for all the fancy flight controls as well. Here's a more detailed look MS Flight [ign.com]. From the article: "That being said, allow me to assuage the longtime fans' fears. Though Microsoft Flight can

The MSFS series has unfortunately never been procedure approved. However, I'm pretty sure that X-plane has a special version which is procedure approved (I don't know what the difference between this and the standard version is though). I don't think flightgear is, but i've not followed them in a while.

There's no more special X-Plane version - you do have to unlock the approved version though by buying a USB license key.

Basically it reconfigures it to FAA requirements for flight training devices. More detai [x-plane.com]